Assorted links

Comments

why do you say the China stock bubble crash prediction is "silly"?

are you against econophysics or something?

what would Barkley Rosser say?

I find it hard to believe that anyone would take Wilkinson's discussion of the difference between consumption and income without saying a single word about rising debt or reduced savings seriously.

>"It is not very easy to convert economic resources into
>political resources."

>Is he kidding?

I know! Just ask President Steve Forbes ;)

2. On the same website as the Chnese forecast there is an interesting look at the Peter principle:

http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/23800/

Do not publicize the China prediction. You don't know what the consequences could be.

http://terrytao.wordpress.com/2008/02/05/the-blue-eyed-islanders-puzzle/

"I wonder why are you linking to something produced by Cato Institute. Do you treat them seriously?"

Maybe he linked to it because it was written by Will Wilkinson, and he takes Wilkinson seriously (as you would, were you fully informed).

So, well then, of course he shouldn't take them seriously since they adopted him?

Do you know what an adjunct scholar is?

Andrew, after reading the Wilkinson paper, I still don't really know why Tyler provided this link to propaganda [ie ideological-motivated statements with thin evidence]. There are other Wilkinsons around who would provide a better, and more robust, accounts on inequality: http://lost.in/yh

Psychological experiments are much in the news
these days. And it is a relief to have got away
from rats, which were all the rage some decades
ago. I find these experiments interesting for
two reasons: insight into how people think and
how they behave and insight into psychologists,
who, like, say, jurists, have their own
characteristics. I must say, however, that
some studies seem to have been done purely because
funds have become available: more ingenuity
than illumination.

Wilkinson is the last guy you want to go to if you want to think clearly about inequality. Yes, I think the issue is overblown, but Wilkinson always approaches the issue from the standpoint of, "There are no problems related to inequality whatsoever. Now, what evidence can I find to support that conclusion?"

Does one observation make something a silly claim?

Comments for this post are closed